Liberals worry that Chief Justice John Roberts has built up political capital... which he will spend next term in what will be conservative decisions on things like affirmative action, voting rights, and same-sex marriage.

If so, then he is a complete hack who should resign immediately, even though those might be the correct decisions.

The only political capital expenditure that could possibly matter would be to apply this “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality,” towards severe restrictions to Roe v. Wade.

The same man that loftily and above the fray, said.. "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices" is now seen as more political than before by the very people he handed a victory to.

You know as well as I do that it's a lod of crap (or bullshit if ye like) that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States would engage in political decision making. He's going to judge by what is Law, not by some fleeting imagination of what ppl might think of him. That's not just rediculous, but diculous to begin with and perhaps threediculous in the final analysis.

Question for lawyer commenting on this blog; now that the court has declared the mandate is a tax, when someone pays it and challenges the tax, what kind of tax will the court rule it is? If I understand it correctly, if its not an income tax then is it a permissible tax? So far as I understand the ruling, the payment of the insurance premium is the tax and the penalty is for not paying the premium (the tax) and the penalty is incurred when not paying the premium (tax). But since taxes are forcible extraction to raise revenue for the government, how does anyone paying the premium (the tax) to an insurance company raise revenue for the government? This is a strange tax and penalty. Not only does the ACA not raise revenue (from premiums) if complied with but only generates revenue for the government if not complied with. This must be the first tax (penalty) to incentivize tax evasion.

In the meantime what exactly has CJ Roberts done to demonstrate his supposed brilliance? As for political capital, the very thought of it is repulsive in a judge. Besides he will soon enough learn that the liberals don't respect him and the conservatives have contempt for him (for his chicanery).

Roberts wasn't needed to repeal Obamacare. It's still mostly unimplemented. You can still get rid of it politically, if you whiny conservatives can get your act together and elect Mitt Romney and various other Republicans in the Senate and House. You might have to swallow your gum and elect a few RINOs to make it happen, though.

On the other issues, Roberts is dealing with issues where an election offers no hope of a cure. That's the Court's job.

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices"

Seems to me he (Roberts) did his best to express his utter disgust with the American electorate, who elect rock stars without any rational thought for what they are going to do once elected.

He's saying it is time to get serious, and get engaged, and don't elect any more Al Frankens, Joe Bidens, Nancy Pelosis and Barbara (the cougar) Boxers. And, worst of all, greenhorns and Chicago thugs like Obama.

And he is 100% right. We're on the wrong track. We've done it to ourselves. we let them pass that accursed bill without reading it. We should have hung them from the rafters of the Capitol. We all know it. And we turn our heads away from the trainwreck, even though we are dead in the path of the oncoming locomotive.

If we're lucky, we are listening to him, and we fix this, even if we do defuse the bomb 2 seconds before detonation, like we see in the movies.

Aside from that, I don't see any silver lining. Even though I agree it's not his job to save us from ourselves.

The Supreme Court justices. There is a right and wrong way to decide gay marriage cases. If the justices go the wrong way they know they will be universally reviled as monsters. It so happens that society's judgment directed at them is actually the correct thing to do. Sometimes popular opinion is wrong. Like the previous couple hundred years when anti-gay bigotry was the popular position.

But now the right decision (don't oppress gay people) is the popular decision (don't oppress gay people). They all know this. There is no way they are going to take the unpopular and wrong decision.

I don't buy that this is some kind of three dimensional chess game from Roberts, but if it is, it's definitely not so he can have cover to stake out an anti-gay position from the high court.

I have read quite a bit about this decision and, as you people well know, I had predicted this it's-a-tax outcome long ago.

Everybody is complaining about what Roberts did. Everybody -- right, left, and center. Isn't it possible that Roberts and the rest of the court that voted with him decided Obamacare is a tax not for political reasons but because it actually is a tax?

Isn't it possible that Roberts and the rest of the court that voted with him decided Obamacare is a tax not for political reasons but because it actually is a tax

No.

The most obvious reason being that under existing precedent, taxes must have the primary purpose of raising revenue. Roberts conceded that the mandate's primary purpose is to coerce people into buying insurance.

This is the worst abomination of a court ruling since 1936. Roberts should resign in disgrace.

Well, no. Not remotely. And you should know you have lost since you are parsing semantics. But, just for fun: how do you fit deductions on taxes into your narrative? And what about the Laffer Curve? And tariffs?

Rev -- You know I hate Obamacare. It must be changed. We must elect politicians who will change it. But it's a tax. It's the government taking your money at the point of a gun.

To the extent that you are wasting precious breath arguing whether something is a tax or a fine or a penalty, or something else: that's all bullshit. Those thing are the same thing. As a libertarian, you should understand this intuitively.

I am using the no doubt oversimplified view (IANAL) that taxes are levied on the individual to pay for distributed benefits, but subsidies are paid out of the general fund to incentivize individual behavior.

Government controlled health care is the "fundamental transformation" the messiah wanted. It changes everything. All those other things are sideshows. Roberts gave the statists what they wanted. All the other things will trail along eventually.

subsidies are paid out of the general fund to incentivize individual behavior

Nothing ever went into any fund with a tax deduction. Further, how can deductions be incentives but forced payments not be incentives? Roberts discusses the legality of taxes for simply existing under the Constitution.

Generally, you all sound like whiny losers. We are conservatives. We preach reality, which is why we always are right.

Buck the fuck up, people. Maybe this will help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

Everybody can win at semantics. It's the thing at issue that matters. And the thing at issue is a tax, which Congress can levy."

Ok, so you win at semantics.

But it isn't a tax.

It wasn't written as a tax.

It isn't collected as a tax.

We have ample evidence of taxes collected for broad social welfare programs like the Social Security and Medicare taxes.

This isn't even written as an excise tax, or collected as an excise tax.

There is no previous federal example of the Chief Legislator's new tax.

The reason for that is quite simple: Congressional Democrats and Obama didn't want it to be a tax, to look like a tax, or be paid like a tax - for all too obvious reasons. Even now, while they celebrate the effect of Roberts' ruling, they (and other supporters) still disclaim it as a tax.

And, for as much as I hate Obamacare - they are right. It is not a tax.

The closest Roberts (and you) can point to is the simple fact the IRS collects the penalty.

Well, who the hell else is going to collect the penalty?

Amtrak? The Forest Service? The Air Force?

In some roundabout way, it may have the effect of a tax; in another, roundabout, ironic way - just as Roberts rescued it as a "tax," Republicans may be able to kill it in the elections with the same argument.

In that case, I'm happy to kill off a lie with the same lie used to give it life for another day.

But none of that makes it a tax. Roberts legislated that reading right into the ACA.

The thing at issue is clarity, and this law and the ruling have erased that.

All three branches of our government, the press, the lawyers arguing, the citizens, the industries involved and all those affected are completely confused about what is a tax, what is legal, what are the limits of the the constitution, and what the law will be. That's the thing at issue. That's what will kill us, bankrupt us, and make the court into a coin flip, which is worse than not having a court.

The thing isn't really about whether it's a tax or not, it's about making it clear. Roberts should have forced the legislature to do so. He and the rest of the justices have no idea what it is. Four disagree with him, and he even disagreed with himself. He assumed facts he didn't have. You don't give the government this kind of power over the citizens on such a lame premise.

His job is not a check on the electorate, but on the other two branches. He didn't do his job, whether for reason of politics, hubris, or weakness, it's irrelevant.

How, pray tell, is it collected? This is no different than taxing you for not owning a home, which is what Congress does right now.

I agree with you that Congress and Obama didn't sell it as a tax. And I think it was terrible politics that the Republicans in Congress didn't call it a tax increase. I agree also that it's a terrible law that will have terrible consequences. But Congress and the president can pass bad law and lie all day long. And all night, too. It is perfectly constitutional.

Bag -- Come on, man. That's ridiculous. Do me a favor. Think of a Supreme Court case you agree with. There's got to be one. Now, go to one of the multitude of sites that has the case freely available. Read the whole thing, start to finish, including concurrences and dissents and footnotes.

Then, come back here and say with a straight, honest face that you want clarity.

It is also perfectly constitutional for the court to throw it back. So with two perfectly constitution options, which was the appropriate one - the one where the lie is rewarded, or the one where the people are protected from the consequences of their choices (in other words, the one where the court actually performs a function).

It's perfectly legal for me to go back to my episode of Myth Busters when my neighbor is being raped in front of my house, but I wouldn't call it a "perfectly" legal decision. I would call it wrong.

Seven. Their job is not to make it less clear. Just because bad decisions have been made before or even often, does not obligate me to accept this one. What's the point of such a court to pretend to decide something. And please don't tell me it's a political body. Everybody knows that. That's why we are arguing it - we're all political.

I disagree. If Congress is doing something it is empowered to do, and since plenary power in this country rests first and foremost with Congress, it would be grossly unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to find Congress's legitimate use of its power unconstitutional.

What was presented to the Court was a bad case with a bad law at its core. Bad cases with bad law at issue make really, really bad law.

That said, I don't understand what is so unclear to you. Have you read the case? The Court held that Congress can, under the Constitution of 1789 as currently amended, use its taxing power to foist hideous laws on the people.

Not is if the very question of if it's a tax or not is unclear. You say plenary powers like that's just to be accepted as what this is. The justices including Roberts himself don't even know for sure, and they didn't provide a clear opinion on it either. The result of this decision is to make the court and the legislature suspect, and not for partisan reason, for simple reason of logic or lack there of.

If you were given the job of deciding something that you just couldn't, because the question was too convoluted, then you should ask it to be restated, unless it's just not important enough. Is that your position - it's not worth it?

This bad case did not have to make bad law. That's the purpose of the court. If it does nothing to prevent that in such an exceptionally important case - maybe the most important of all time - then what is the court for? Is it just to make the political game a little more unpredictable, and fun? It has succeeded there.

Bag -- I think people on both sides got way too invested in this. Congress made a crappy law and a libertarian law professor made a brilliant argument about why the law isn't constitutional under the Commerce Clause. That argument was accepted, which is awesome if you are a fan of limited government. However, it happens that what Congress did amounted to a tax, which Congress can constitutionally apply.

I also think it's great that the tax power is the one at issue. If people are so stupid as to allow Congress to tax them like this, well, they get what they deserve until it all falls apart and taxes must come down. Look at Sweden now for crying out loud.

I also think the Supreme Court does a good job overall, and I think that, while it's a political institution, the members do their level best to reason out the cases constitutionally. Charging the Supreme Court with playing politics with opinions is like charging the pope with not really believing all that He Is Risen crap -- not a particularly believable charge.

Also, this case is not remotely important in the overall scheme of things except, and this is big and awesome if you are a conservative, as a possible game changer for Commerce Clause litigation in the future.

You think this case is bigger than Dred Scott? Than Brown v. Board of Education? Come on. You are letting your passionate disappointment get the best of you.

Seven, I agree that the court has mostly done a reasonable job over the years.

I don't care if the reasons for it's failures are political, but when it fails to make the constitutional limitations clear, and instead confuses everyone about that, then they should be called on it. That is after all their only job. We can live with disagreement, but to muddy the questions is just simply a fail.

The court made all the issues here worse, except for the one of your vote being important. I thank Roberts for that, but this is a republic and not a direct democracy for a reason, and that gives him a responsibility that, surprisingly to me, he shrunk from. The electorate will have to clarify it now, but that's a very blunt weapon.

What makes you think they will do any better after what the court has said

Faith and hope. But also the fact that time occurs. Because Obamacare isn't going to work. It will have to be changed. You can believe that we will end up single-payer, but we won't. This was the best Democrats could do with the presidency and overwhelming majorities in Congress (and, by the way, lots of Democrats don't want single payer).

What will eventually happen -- I predict -- is a push by the federal government for health savings accounts. It will be as common as a 401k by a factor of a lot.

"But Congress and the president can pass bad law and lie all day long. And all night, too. It is perfectly constitutional."

No one disputes that.

No one disputes that Congress could have enacted this under it's taxing authority.

But they didn't.

And just because the IRS collects the penalty doesn't make it a tax either. It wouldn't make any damn sense for anyone else to collect it. It was so obvious that even Pelosi could figure that out.

Nor is any of that sufficient to overturn the obvious work the Congress and president put in to make sure it wasn't a tax, especially in light of all the obvious, easy ways in which they could have enacted this as a tax.

Bottom line is, Roberts legislated.

For whatever reason, he didn't want to overturn this, and a found a weak, flimsy excuse for not doing so.

Yes this is more important because it's one of the few cases that will affect every single person in the nation now living or future and even in other nations, and it will directly affect their very lives. While important, Dred Scott, or Brown did not do that. They just put a date on things that were inevitable. This nation has a choice of path, and which way it will go is not inevitable on this question, because I think it's still exceptional.

Also, the Roberts' "tax" is so obviously a penalty because the "tax" is hardly sufficient to pay for the cost of the coverage not being taken up; it is clearly a penalty for not doing as the government mandates.

Nor is it a fee, because the "fee" would only be levied for not taking up coverage - not in exchange for some service.

This is so completely obvious a penalty it stun the mind to think how Roberts thought himself into this pretzel.

I'm guessing he'll come to regret it - he's certainly young enough to have time enough to regret it - not because its politically embarrassing, but because its logic is so godawful, embarrassingly bad.

No one disputes that Congress could have enacted this under it's taxing authority. But they didn't.

But they did. If my arm indisputably moves and I swear to you up and down and by God and Jesus and His disciples that I moved my leg and not my arm, what just happened?

Nowhere does the Constitution say that Congress must be honest, or that Congress must set out the power under which is acting. Congress lied to you. Get over it. Politicians lie. All the time. When it comes to foreign affairs, it is quite literally part of the job description. You don't want some inveterate truth teller dealing with your mortal enemies. Think, dude.

That said, I do think it would be wise to have a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to set out the power under which it is acting for every law it passes. Congress will never be honest. That's a ridiculous thing to expect.

P.S. Tomorrow, I will not wear red, white-or blue, nor wave the flag, nor celebrate the 4th in any way. For the America that the 4th celebrated is dead and gone, replaced with a fascistic state as of last Thursday. And I hold no allegiance to that Obamanation.

I will wear a black armband instead, per Larry Auster's suggestion. I suggest everyone interested in freedom does the same.

Quite frankly, I don't see how Roberts factors into the gay marriage issue at all. We know the previous cases dealing with gay rights, and I don't think anyone actually doubts the Court won't rule to legalize gay marriage.

Kennedy is the swing vote in those cases, not Roberts, and Romer and Lawrence make it pretty clear how he'll vote. Hell, he'll probably author the opinion again, too.

Why does anyone think a man so unprincipled as Roberts has shown will not go completely over to the Dark Side and become the leftists fifth vote on everything?

The man has demonstrated that he is a knave, an untrustworthy poltroon.

Having been rightly cast out by those who revere the Constitution and liberty as a traitor, I think he is most likely to become a reliable liberal, soaking up the adulation of the leftist press and the leftist legal academy and establishment.

I would counsel anyone with a Constitutional challenge to government power to wait until there are 5 Constitutionalist votes on the Court -- which means waiting a damned long time, I fear.

I am ad thoroughly disgusted with Roberts as anyone, but I am afraid our justifiable outrage will only drive Roberts into the arms of the Wise Latina and her ilk.

Can you imagine any remaining collegiality between Roberts and any of the four conservative dissenters after the combination of the dissent itself and the leaks?

"Bob Ellison said...Curious George, he means the mortgage-interest deduction. Anything can be called anything. Jabberwocky."

I know. But it takes the same kind of gymnastics to call a mortgage interest deduction a "tax for not owning a home" as ROberts used. It's just stupid. First, the government imposes no separate taxation for not owning a home. Second, the reduction in tax is in regard to taxation on your income. Now if the Feds want to give you a deduction if you buy insurance, that'so ne thing. They are not doing that here.

Gaming for political capital is the surest way to undermine whatever reputational capital the court has left among the gullible and superstitious and nervous who might want to believe in the legitimacy of the regime, Roberts's contortions were too cynical not to be seen as cynical - and the high priest has exposed to a larger audience that the political class really does disdain the old Republican Mysteries as a sham played for rubes.

All the whiners hereon seem to take it for granted that, even with a majority in the Senate, our elected Republican representatives will nothave the guts to kill this thing.If so, we deserve it. We voted them into office.

The problem is, even if Obamacare is repealed, we are now left with the precedent that government can penalize us for not entering into contracts of their choosing. There will more mischief to come from his ruling than anything Obama has dreamed up so far.

P.S. I have been reading lately about the Catholic martyrs in Elizabethan England. Not only did the English execute practicing Catholics for treason, they also levied a financial penalty on anyone who didn't attend Church of England services every Sunday. Efficient way to convert an entire nation quickly, no? I do not feel celebratory this July 4th.

"It would have been nice not to have to fight for what we believe electorally, but we do.".

Exactly. I approach November with a very heavy heart now, less hopeful, though more determined. My fear of further betrayal is high, but there are no other options.

Four other Justices found the law unconstitutional, so Roberts could have as well. That disgusts me. That day I gave even more money to Romney, so I do not cede the election.

But I have no more faith in him as a jurist. He rolled, worse, he's a quisling. I see no reason not to bitch, loud and long. He can't go any further left than he has already, not because I complain about it.

Why not? That is precisely what CJ Roberts & his cohorts did in this finding. It wasn't even his idea ... the government's own lawyers presented the "it's a tax" argument along with the "penalty incentive" argument. Roberts merely copped that plea for the proponents, powdered his arse and ambled away. What is ludicrous is all this claim about genius and deep thinking behind the ruling. Nonsense.

I spent considerable time as a "Fed" and not much surprises me in Washington in any of the three branches. Seven is correct, they all lie, more or less. Bagoh2o is correct that lying does not excuse itself. My view is closest to Bagoh2o's ... this crap has to stop somewhere. With an arrogant Executive, emasculated Congress, and now a diminutive Court, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Can you imagine any remaining collegiality between Roberts and any of the four dissenting conservatives after the combination of the dissent itself and the leaks?

This is what goes round and round in my head. Roberts bought the approval of the editorial boards of the NY Times and Washington Post and I suppose the leading hostesses of Washington's party circuit at the cost of the contempt of half his peers on the Court. Distant approval for frosty civility, at best, in his immediate workplace. Is there anything worse than to have permanently lost the respect of ones respected peers? And then to have to face them for the rest of your working life? Even feeling contempt for the man myself I pity him.

If the AHCA depends on a tax, it is a revenue measure and not subject to filibustering in the Senate.23 of the Senate seats up for election in Nov. are Democrats.The Republicans need to gain 4 seats, or 3 plus the vice-presidency in order to have a simple majority.

And it may not even go that far. Look at the number of prominent Democrats that are "too busy" or want to "spend time with their family" rather than attend their national convention.

Roberts gave it back to the Legislative to resolve - where it had ough to be, anyway - and he did it accepting the Democrats' own argument before the Court, so they have no choice but to accept it, however much they may hate to; their situation being what it now is, and looking to get worse.

Said practising Catholics also had to follow the Pope's exhortations and attempt to rid England of its heretic rulers before they could be prosecuted for treason. This is NBC-type contraction, Timmy.

And I know for a fact that Scandinavian Lutherans were subject to be fined for not attending church on Holy Days, and I strongly suspect that Catholics in Catholic countries also were. Have you checked on that? What has been the situation in the Republic since 1923?

Sure - they take primary responsibility, as do these dumb enough to vote for Obama - but for the ACA to have been dispensed with, all Roberts needed to do was recognize the bill imposed a mandate with a penalty for failure to comply, rather than contrive a mythical, heretofore unknown, unwritten tax, seemingly solely for the purpose of ensuring its survival, for now.

Said practising Catholics also had to follow the Pope's exhortations and attempt to rid England of its heretic rulers before they could be prosecuted for treason.

Not true. Just attending a mass was enough to qualify for treason, or giving a priest a beer. Or sending your children to Catholic schools in Europe.

Nice try at changing the topic, anyway. The point is not whether Protestants abuse Catholics more than Catholics abused Protestants, but that these types of financial penalties are more effective than taxes for coercing a people into a desired behavior.

Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, our government now has that weapon at its disposal. That's the legacy of the Supreme Court's decision, and we will have to live with it long after Obamacare has come and gone.

Did these fines have the underlying intention of raising revenue, like speeding tickets?

I believe the intention was to encourage people to attend the new church. The state would have been happier to never collect the money. (Which is why it's not a tax. And is why the insurance mandate is also not a tax.)

Anyways, for all of you lawyers. What happens when the Supreme Court makes such an obvious error - calling a fine a tax? Since it is the highest court in the land, does that mean it can change the meaning of words with impunity and we all have to live with it as law? That is the impression this layperson has.

Come to think of it, your payroll taxes are routinely referred to as "payroll taxes" though the programs they support (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) were not sold to the voters as the tax supported welfare programs that they are.